ILovePhilosophy.com

1.Genetic evolution is deterministic and creative.
2. The experience of genetic evolution translates into myth.
3. A prevalent myth from experience of genetic evolution is the existence of God.

go on

Ierrellus wrote: 1.Genetic evolution is deterministic and creative.

Depends on what you mean by "deterministic". Are all genes and their interaction with other genes wholly determined by immutable laws of matter? Is the human brain no exception? If so, then "creativity" is no less a necessary/inherent component of what could only ever possibly be.

Ierrellus wrote: 2. The experience of genetic evolution translates into myth.

Given the manner in which "I" have come to understand a "determined universe", the translation itself is but another necessary/inherent manifestation of nature evolving over time and space only as it ever can.

Ierrellus wrote: 3. A prevalent myth from experience of genetic evolution is the existence of God.

Same thing. Gods exists because human brains exist to "create" them because human brains could not not have created them going back to whatever is "behind" the existence of matter/energy itself.

Call that "God" if you will. After all, in a wholly determined universe, it's not like you ever really had an actual autonomous choice not to.

4. Myths of evolutionary experience provide survival for the organism by furnishing an accurate recognition of the internal and external sameness of matter. We eat what we are composed of.
5. There is no internal need devoid of an external source for meeting that need.
6. The need for existence of a God is satisfied by the personal nature of a creative and deterministic Force. There is a spiritual hunger.

Iamb,
By deterministic I'm referring to the way stem cells become organs or fertilized eggs become organisms. The evolution is deterministic; the outcome is creative.

7. As we evolve our concept of, and experience of God also evolves.

Who, either theist or atheist, has not felt a divine sense of awe while being in an awesome natural environment? A felt sense of wholeness by belonging.

The three experiences of Dasein, the human trinity, are being, becoming and belonging, Evolving by our becoming, our experience of belonging provides a sense of ethics that gives meaning for human existence.

We're evolving to be moral in an ecosystem of interdependent parts--a plenitude.

Yes, that evolution come myth accesses the metaphor of various re-cognition of the inner core of faith. Absolutely as IT is relatively.

Why cannot human evolution be seen as a spiritual journey? Is there still a science vs religion bias among current intellectuals?

Gandhi notes the inevitable failure of evil throughout history. Currently, we exist in a period of sore transition. It is not wishful thinking to believe this too shall pass. It's a fact of history. Evolution is creative, and the creativity is toward the good of all beings.

What does “the good of all being” mean? Better survivability with less suffering? Has progress brought us out of physical struggle eras into this emotional struggle era that may be caused from unfulfilled spiritual hunger? Can we speak freely about spiritual hunger when science denies spirit, soul which I call the ‘energy of consciousness?’

WendyDarling wrote:What does “the good of all being” mean? Better survivability with less suffering? Has progress brought us out of physical struggle eras into this emotional struggle era that may be caused from unfulfilled spiritual hunger? Can we speak freely about spiritual hunger when science denies spirit, soul which I call the ‘energy of consciousness?’

Energy of consciousness may just be another name for the drive of the human spirit. The main obstacle between a marriage of science and religion is the belief, by some scientists, that evolution is without purpose. But it is simply a belief. The purpose of this thread is to suggest that there is more than fortuity behind the progress of humanity. History has shown such a progress.
Spiritual hunger is an evident experience, regardless of what names you give it. And there is no real internal need devoid of an external supply of what meets that need.

See Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now.
2020 may be a horrible time for many, but its ravages do not negate the progress humans have made throughout history--progress in relief from suffering as well as in relief from toxic ideas. The future of humanity may rest on how many of us are able to recognize that we each are interdependent parts of an ecosystem.
We are our brother's keeper.

The only problem I have with Pinker's rosy view of progress is that it does not include indigenous people, many of whom have progressive notions about man's place on Earth; e.g. "We are part of the Earth and it is part of us. This we know Earth does not belong to us we belong to Earth."---Chief Seattle.

"Why cannot human evolution be seen as a spiritual journey?"

Because believing so is a magnificent distraction from very real, very material struggle.

Metaphysical talk amounts to two things only; gross conceptual confusion or deliberate attempts to obfuscate explanations for physical phenomena.

promethean75 wrote:"Why cannot human evolution be seen as a spiritual journey?"

Because believing so is a magnificent distraction from very real, very material struggle.

Metaphysical talk amounts to two things only; gross conceptual confusion or deliberate attempts to obfuscate explanations for physical phenomena.

Based on my own exchanges with Christians [progressive or otherwise], this won't reach him. Why? Because spiritual journeys of their sort provide them with two things that material struggles never can: a moral script to fall back on revolving around, "what would Jesus do?" [either this or that], and a leap of faith that encompasses immortality and salvation [with a Bible to confirm it].

And even to the extent one can embrace a material struggle that revolves around a political ideology like Marxism...with a "manifesto" that provides at least some semblance of "the right thing to do"...there's still oblivion.

On the other hand, with political fonts like Marxism at least "I" is not fractured and fragmented.

Nothing, alas, gets much bleaker than my own frame of mind.

Well, given my own entirely unique "set of circumstances" anyway.

Metaphysics is a continuation of physics, not some false conceptions about the nature of matter and the human struggle in and of matter. Parts of the material continuum do not conflict, they evolve. The reality is, of course, the whole in which both physics and metaphysics describe experienced reality.
Iamb, I am not involved in the fundamentalist Christianity you accuse me of harboring. My thoughts are a marriage of science and religion based on the belief that evolution has a purpose, that is to reunite the parts where they are seen as separate in minds. In reality there is plenitude--an ultimate variety comprising one thing. I would not support such a belief had I not experienced the Whole physically, mentally and spiritually. The trinity of human being is being, becoming and belonging. It is in our recognition of belonging that we find the precursors of ethics. That art thou. What you rail against is a part of you.

Are there any thinkers here who are not anti-religion atheists?

Ierrellus wrote: Metaphysics is a continuation of physics, not some false conceptions about the nature of matter and the human struggle in and of matter. Parts of the material continuum do not conflict, they evolve. The reality is, of course, the whole in which both physics and metaphysics describe experienced reality.

Again, my own interest in religion and physics and metaphysics pertains to the part that, however any particular individual views them intertwined, they become crucial in regard to the behaviors that they choose on this side of the grave...as that pertains to the fate they imagine for "I" on the other side of the grave.

In other words, not nearly so much in "intellectual/spiritual contraptions" like yours above. My own concerns pertain to the lives that we live. Lives that often come into dispute over conflicting value judgments derived from all of the many different spiritual paths embraced by any number of different religious denominations.

Even within Christianity alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination

In fact, here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... n#Taxonomy -- Progressive Christianity is not even mentioned.

Then the part where anyone who is trekking along any of these spiritual paths makes the attempt to move beyond their more or less blind faith to actually demonstrating instead why what they believe in their head is in fact true for all rational and virtuous human beings.

Short of that, I make the presumption that they believe what they do given what I construe to be the "psychology of objectivism" here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

Which is why, from my own frame of mind, you almost always steer the discussion here back up into a world of words:

Ierrellus wrote: Iamb, I am not involved in the fundamentalist Christianity you accuse me of harboring. My thoughts are a marriage of science and religion based on the belief that evolution has a purpose, that is to reunite the parts where they are seen as separate in minds. In reality there is plenitude--an ultimate variety comprising one thing. I would not support such a belief had I not experienced the Whole physically, mentally and spiritually. The trinity of human being is being, becoming and belonging. It is in our recognition of belonging that we find the precursors of ethics. That art thou. What you rail against is a part of you.

I ask myself: What on Earth does any of this have to do with the parts that I aim to steer discussions of God and religion towards: morality here and now, immortality there and then.

Take this "Whole" that you have experienced and describe it in more detail as it relates to the life that you live. In particular when that life comes into contact with others who embrace moral or spiritual values at odds with your own. Why your path and not theirs?

And then the part that is of special interest to me: after we die.

What do you claim to know about this part and how on earth are you able to demonstrate to me and others why you believe it to in fact be the case.

Ierrellus wrote:Are there any thinkers here who are not anti-religion atheists?

Why don't you start a new thread in which you make it clear that only those who are not anti-religion atheists are welcome to participate. I can promise you that I will abide by your wishes. And apart from a few Kids here who abide by nothing other than their own often infantile need to ejaculate tantrums, I'm sure all the rest of the members here will respect your wishes in turn.

Ierrellus wrote:Are there any thinkers here who are not anti-religion atheists?

I'm an omnist in my own way.
That means there is some good in every religion.
But that means that there is some good in all human works. Sometimes at least.

iambiguous wrote:

Ierrellus wrote:Are there any thinkers here who are not anti-religion atheists?

Why don't you start a new thread in which you make it clear that only those who are not anti-religion atheists are welcome to participate. I can promise you that I will abide by your wishes. And apart from a few Kids here who abide by nothing other than their own often infantile need to ejaculate tantrums, I'm sure all the rest of the members here will respect your wishes in turn.

This thread is sufficient. I believe I have stated my philosophy of progressive Christianity both as metaphysical position and as an existential awareness. I do not need to keep repeating it even when someone like you claims not to understand it or repeats only your philosophic response again and again ad nauseum. You seem to expect of me some mental contraption that does neglect what you see as the given human condition. You would not believe Spong's exegesis of Christianity if it is to have a future. Why should you see anything I have to report about spirituality as other than something to argue about or something absurd in your philosophy?

Dan~ wrote:

Ierrellus wrote:Are there any thinkers here who are not anti-religion atheists?

I'm an omnist in my own way.
That means there is some good in every religion.
But that means that there is some good in all human works. Sometimes at least.

Thanks. That makes spiritual sense.

The spiritual experience: one way to describe it is the feeling you get when exposed to beautiful Natural settings. (See my poem "Belonging".) It is also the feeling you get when two or more people are gathered in one accord. It is the exuberance of young lambs frolicking in the meadows. It is the state of discovery of something good or beautiful. It is the only type of feeling that comes from empathy and compassion. It is what makes human life bearable.